Why are our politicians such idiots?

[Argus]

Seriously. This isn't just a Canadian issue, of course. The majority of "leaders" throughout the democratic world appear woefully short on leadership skills.

I can't say there has ever been a politician I have seen in Canada who impressed me. Preston Manning, perhaps, for a time. He had a certain natural charm and ideas I liked. But for the most part, the MPs and would-be MPs I see are lacking in almost every department. They have no wit or wisdom to convey. They aren't well-spoken, have no charisma, no broad vision to inspire me - or anyone else.

Why?

The two main reasons I see is that MPs (or MPPs) are merely warm bodies who take a script written by their party and mouth the words. And of course, the script is written by poli sci graduates in conjuction with polling firms and statisticians, calculated and nuanced to appeal to voting segments and to allow wiggle room to back away from suggested promises. Who can be inspired by that? The other part is we're really not paying attention. These are our would-be representatives and most of us don't even know their names. We vote for the parties. And most of us don't even spend much time on the party platforms. We catch occasional thirty second sound bytes on the news, a few glimpses of headlines, and that's it. Those, like the people on this web site interested enough in politics to delve deeper, are sadly rare.

Isn't there a better way? If you were appointed absolute dictator of Canada, and had to set up a new government, what would you do which would make it more representative - or at least, more competent, capable and honest?

[Argus]

Isn't there a better way? If you were appointed absolute dictator of Canada, and had to set up a new government, what would you do which would make it more representative - or at least, more competent, capable and honest?

I'm going to answer my own question here. Why in a second post? Because without even thinking on it I realize that even the people here on this site have short attention spans these days. Too long a post and they won't read it. Says something about our problem right there, doesn't it? Can democracy really function given a society like this?

Do we need democracy as it is? One man one vote, one MP?

My proposal is to do away with direct democracy. I think we should vote for a president (for lack of a better word) whose duties would be largely ceremonial. Groups among us should then appoint a council of electors, a body of people representative of certain groups. The miltary could appoint one member, the church groups another, the unions would appoint someone, as would big business, as would small business ,as would agricultural groups, fishermen, etc. You get the idea. You could have a lawyer, a doctor, a factory worker. Whatever. These positions wouild be part-time.

The job of this council would be to appoint and oversee monitoring boards which would be responsible for appointing, promoting and dismissing politicians at all levels of government. Someone would be chosen or apply for a job as a local trustee or councilman. Based solely on his or her behaviour and abilities in that job, the board overseeing that level would promote him or her to the next higher level. A higher board would then oversee his duties and behaviour, and promote him higher still, if merited, or drop him/her.

By the time someone got to be a cabinet minister, then, he would have been a trustee, councellor, MPP, probably a provincial cabinet minister, then MP, and been watched, assessed and promoted by a variety of overseeing bodies based on his or her abilities alone. The Prime Minister (or whatever you name it) would then be selected by the President from among that cabinet with the advise of the first council of electors.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would install a direct democracy. I would form a tri-cameral system of government, an elected leader, an elected parliment and a elected senate. All representatives at all levels would be subject to recall at the discretion of the citizens. All legislation not related to national security and justice would be subject to ratification of the public. Work rules would be established to require that elected representatives actually show up for work and establish a work week for legislators equal to what the citizens are required to preform. Elections would have fixed dates that were not subject to the whims of politicians.

[Argus]

I would install a direct democracy. I would form a tri-cameral system of government, an elected leader, an elected parliment and a elected senate. All representatives at all levels would be subject to recall at the discretion of the citizens. All legislation not related to national security and justice would be subject to ratification of the public.

What kind of rules would you put in place to stop abuse? What kind of timelines for these public ratifications?

Suppose the public decides to approve a tax increase? Then, a month later, the public decides against it? Then reisntate it, then cancels it...

How often can they recall a politician? How many votes needed to have a second election?

How do you let the public know about individual issues given so few pay any attention now? Do you allow open advertising by anyone? Or only by the political parties? Where do the parties get the money for all these ads?

What is the relationship between these three elected groups? Who has control of what? Who dominates? What if they can't agree? What if the parliament has a liberal majority, the senate a tory majority, and the PM is a NDPer?

[jbg]

My view is you get what you pay for. The salaries of MP's, MPP's, PM's etc. should be significantly increased, perhaps doubled.

Right now, if your country is anything like ours, the best and the brightest do not go into politics. Also, strangely, the ethics rules should perhaps be loosened. Someone trying to help Reagan form a government quipped that one "almost had to be unemployed and on welfare" to pass conflict rules.

I'd rather pay our people enough that they could afford to risk private sector careers to go into government, and to free them from the need to seek extra funds of dubious legality.

[Argus]

My view is you get what you pay for. The salaries of MP's, MPP's, PM's etc. should be significantly increased, perhaps doubled.

Right now, if your country is anything like ours, the best and the brightest do not go into politics.

Let's face it: the best and brightest are already so well-off they don't care about salaries. And bigger payments do not guarantee results. How many expensive CEOs ran their companies deep into the ground? How many are in federal prison now for fraud and theft?

The best and brightest don't get into politics because they don't think they would have the power to make real differences, and because they don't want to be restricted in their words, behaviour and policies by all the tight, ridiculous rules and codes and media attention politicians get. Hell, you could be a genius, cut the costs of a department in half while doubling its output, but if a reporter catches you telling an ethnic joke one night at a party you'll be condemned as a racist scum unfit for office. If you ever get drunk publicly, or have a family dispute, or any kind of embarrassing history somewhere in your family, it'll be dredged out by the media.

Unless, you're gay, of course. Then the media will leave you alone.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

What kind of rules would you put in place to stop abuse?

Firstly, there has to be the desire to stop the abuse, and it isn't there. The problem is that your view...

Based solely on his or her behaviour and abilities in that job, the board overseeing that level would promote him or her to the next higher level. A higher board would then oversee his duties and behaviour, and promote him higher still, if merited, or drop him/her.

is unrealistic, for those that 'appoint and annoint' are bought by corporations that have a vested interest in what decisions are taken, what contracts are awarded and to whom, etc. Graft, really.

While I like your ideas, gov't reformation would likely be a one-shot deal, sliding back to corruption in a very short period of time. If greed greases the wheels of 'the market', how could it be expected to be any different in gov't?

As jbg opines,

My view is you get what you pay for. The salaries of MP's, MPP's, PM's etc. should be significantly increased, perhaps doubled.

you do get what you pay for, and most of the 'good business people' are in the private sector, with philanthropy as a choice and not as a career. The problem with increasing their salaries is that they still wouldn't be held to any 'production standards' as in the private sector. How many companies would keep the staff that were in charge of, say product registration, given a 2 million dollar budget and then see it balloon to a billion dollars with no progress being made? Not a single one, and none would remain in business.

[August1991]

Because without even thinking on it I realize that even the people here on this site have short attention spans these days. Too long a post and they won't read it. Says something about our problem right there, doesn't it? Can democracy really function given a society like this?

Argus, people don't have a short attention span. They just realize the foolishness of devoting alot of effort only to have someone else reap the benefits.

Why should I, as voter, go to all the trouble of figuring out who is the best leader with the best policies? You, as a non-voter, will benefit from my wise efforts. We have all had to work on a group project and we all know that slackers let the serious ones get the job done. An election is a group project of several million.

Until you overcome this fundamental problem, and I don't see how your proposal does that, then people will be having this conversation in 100 years time.

At present our leaders are chosen more or less by lottery. Under your proposal, far worse could happen. A small cabal could take control. Indeed, you proposal looks suspiciously like the way federated unions choose their leaders.

----

On a related point, New Zealand has experimented with giving specific performance contracts to senior government bureaucrats. I have heard it said that one of the worst reforms of Trudeau was to create the rotational mandarin class of deputy ministers. Prior to Trudeau, the deputy ministers stayed in their position for years and knew their departments inside out.

[Charles Anthony]

Suppose the public decides to approve a tax increase? Then, a month later, the public decides against it? Then reisntate it, then cancels it...

How often can they recall a politician? How many votes needed to have a second election?

Exchange "tax" for "car" and "politician" for "dealer". The automobile market deals with such volatile changes well enough. Can we inject more market forces into the workings of government? Yes, we can! by making the jurisdiction it monopolizes smaller!

The answer to government inefficiency or ineffectiveness or waste is simple and universal: de-amalgamation.

My view is you get what you pay for. The salaries of MP's, MPP's, PM's etc. should be significantly increased, perhaps doubled.

Not really. The pay-receipt relationship is completely fouled up. You brush off the cost of what you get onto other people whether those other people want it or not. Talk about market failure! Why should we be surprised that the performance of this market is less than desirable?!?

If greed greases the wheels of 'the market', how could it be expected to be any different in gov't?

You are confusing "cronyism" with "the market".

At present our leaders are chosen more or less by lottery. Under your proposal, far worse could happen.

You posted this observation before and it stopped me then.

Truthfully, I believe it is a valid justification for accepting democracy -- albeit, in my eyes, the only one. It is also an excellent counter-argument for people who complain about non-voters.

The quote about cancelling the driver's license renewals is exquisite.

Finally they admitted that they could think of no good reason for what they were doing – so we abolished the whole process! Now a driver’s license is good until a person is 74 years old, after which he must get an annual medical test to ensure he is still competent to drive. So not only did we not need new fees, we abolished a whole department. That’s what I mean by thinking differently.

New Zealand experience with Government

Let us scrutinize everything the government does. How much "government" do you think we would have left?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A person seeking an ideal government should read the American Declaration of Independence. In my view it is one of the greatest pieces of political writing ever put to paper. It rates the same category of respect as the Magna Carta. Even so, it lacks some relevant albeit modern revisions.

A government of the people and by the people must serve at the pleasure of the people and therefore a democracy in which each citizen of legal age is responsible to participate in the election of representatives that would gather to consider the issues of the nation and preside over the stewardship of the public as a whole.

Democracy is fragile, ignore it and it will die. One of the gravest assaults on democracy is the freedom which allows individuals to act in accordance with their own best interests. A democratic government needs the support of the public to survive, and the apathetic approach to politics which has recently become so common among citizens is a very real threat to our society. Our freedom depends on the strength of our democracy and since the only way to preserve that democracy is through particpation in the political process we need to enshrine this within a constitutional framework. Society must legislate participation in the political process.

[PocketRocket]

Mandatory IQ tests before someone is allowed to run for public office, perhaps???

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Mandatory IQ tests before someone is allowed to run for public office, perhaps???

Do you know of any real fools who can get elected? We may all call them fools but the reality is that we all know the are not. Why not just make not voting against the law?

[MightyAC]

Lately I've been impressed by Garth Turner. It's a rare thing these days when a politician puts his or her constituents ahead of the party. He recognizes that he represents everyone in his riding not just those that voted Conservative. I find that inspiring.

If I had my way we would have a mixed member proportional system, no senate, fixed 4 year terms, no ability to topple coalition governments and a partridge in a pear tree.

I agree with August’s excellent group project analogy…PR tends to greatly increase voter turn out. I’m not sure why exactly but I suspect it is because every vote counts. Currently, why would Conservative voters in Toronto, Liberals in Alberta or Green voters anywhere bother heading to the polls? I think the fact that under PR those people can still help create representation makes the difference.

[Argus]

Based solely on his or her behaviour and abilities in that job, the board overseeing that level would promote him or her to the next higher level. A higher board would then oversee his duties and behaviour, and promote him higher still, if merited, or drop him/her.

is unrealistic, for those that 'appoint and annoint' are bought by corporations that have a vested interest in what decisions are taken, what contracts are awarded and to whom, etc. Graft, really.

That's why I'm trying to make it harder. Those who "appoint and annoint" would be a mixed bunch appointed by people from specific sectors. Ie, the Canadian Council of Churches could appoint one or two, the Canadian Labour Congress would get one or two, the Federation of Small Businesses, the military, the Canadian Medical Association, et. etc. They would be appointed by these seperate groups with the consent of the President. And since they wouldn't be campaigning for anything there would be no real way for corporations to influence most of them except outright open bribery.

[Argus]

Why should I, as voter, go to all the trouble of figuring out who is the best leader with the best policies? You, as a non-voter, will benefit from my wise efforts. We have all had to work on a group project and we all know that slackers let the serious ones get the job done. An election is a group project of several million.

So maybe we should make it harder to join the project? Maybe people should be required to actually go somewhere, sit down, and take a test to get a licence to vote. However easy the test is the effort alone will wind up dropping 2/3rds of the voters off the list.

At present our leaders are chosen more or less by lottery. Under your proposal, far worse could happen. A small cabal could take control. Indeed, you proposal looks suspiciously like the way federated unions choose their leaders.

I don't see the comparison. Unions choose from a bottom up vote, where they vote for their local rep, and the local rep then votes for the higher rep. This would be top down, with the voters choosing the president, and then the president together with a board appointed by numerous different groups deciding on promotions for experienced politicians.

[Argus]

Mandatory IQ tests before someone is allowed to run for public office, perhaps???

Do you know of any real fools who can get elected? We may all call them fools but the reality is that we all know the are not. Why not just make not voting against the law?

We don't want to force more ignorant people to go out and choose whichever name "sounds good" to them. I'd go the other way, and restrict voting to only those who have demonstrated a determination to make use of their vote, and to engage in the process sufficient to know what the parties are and what they stand for.

There was a time when there was a means test for voting, too. I'm not sure that's not a good idea. Voters are ultimately deciding the fate of the country. Shouldn't we try to limit those voters to people who are sufficiently intelligent, capable and learned enough to be at least moderately succesful in their own lives?

[Figleaf]

I would install a direct democracy. I would form a tri-cameral system of government, an elected leader, an elected parliment and a elected senate. All representatives at all levels would be subject to recall at the discretion of the citizens. All legislation not related to national security and justice would be subject to ratification of the public. Work rules would be established to require that elected representatives actually show up for work and establish a work week for legislators equal to what the citizens are required to preform. Elections would have fixed dates that were not subject to the whims of politicians.

Personally, I feel a well-balanced recall system would solve most of the problems we have with a democratic deficit, without the need for any other substantial changes. Recall would put the elected representatives at the sharp end of a proper incentive system. They'd soon wise up, and those that couldn't get wise would get turfed.

[August1991]

So maybe we should make it harder to join the project? Maybe people should be required to actually go somewhere, sit down, and take a test to get a licence to vote. However easy the test is the effort alone will wind up dropping 2/3rds of the voters off the list.

Sorry to sound insulting but sometimes you can be thick, Argus.

How would making it harder to vote solve the problem? How would eliminating certain voters solve the problem? You took my group school project problem and literally applied it to voting! You think by eliminating the slackers we'd solve the problem!

You want to buy a used car. I go running around town for a day or two asking questions and then find the best car in the price range. What's in it for me? Nothing. So generally people don't run around finding a used car for someone else and they generally don't shovel their neighbour's driveway. Similarly, there is no advantage in paying attention to politics and voting. Let someone else do the heavy lifting and sit back to enjoy the benefits - such as they are.

Incidentally, a system of proportional representation doesn't change this problem.

I don't see the comparison. Unions choose from a bottom up vote, where they vote for their local rep, and the local rep then votes for the higher rep. This would be top down, with the voters choosing the president, and then the president together with a board appointed by numerous different groups deciding on promotions for experienced politicians.

It's the "numerous different groups" that made me think of federated unions. Anything other than universal suffrage usually leads to cabals and clans.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Personally, I feel a well-balanced recall system would solve most of the problems we have with a democratic deficit, without the need for any other substantial changes. Recall would put the elected representatives at the sharp end of a proper incentive system. They'd soon wise up, and those that couldn't get wise would get turfed.

Nonsense. Recall is no different from re-election.

Politicians now face the incentive of almost perfect randomness. A wrong move or an unfortunate event, and they get turfed. The election process itself is fairly random.

I say that's better than Fidel Castro who is approaching 50 years of absolute power...

This guy's got it right:

Ibrahim wrote an opinion piece, published in The Guardian newspaper last week, in which he said he was trying in part to address reluctance to give up power on a continent where military dictators and presidents for life have held sway for too long.

"A situation in which leaders face three choices — relative poverty, term extension, or corruption — is not conducive to good governance," Ibrahim wrote." And the continent's problems will not be solved unless governance improves radically."

CBC

[Argus]

So maybe we should make it harder to join the project? Maybe people should be required to actually go somewhere, sit down, and take a test to get a licence to vote. However easy the test is the effort alone will wind up dropping 2/3rds of the voters off the list.

Sorry to sound insulting but sometimes you can be thick, Argus.

Now why would I find that insulting?

How would making it harder to vote solve the problem? How would eliminating certain voters solve the problem?

I"m not sure I understand the question. Why would eliminating the ignorant, the intellectually-lazy, the people who know little about what's going on and couldn't be bothered to put in the effort - how would eliminating them make for a more intelligent electorate? Is that what you're asking?

You want to buy a used car. I go running around town for a day or two asking questions and then find the best car in the price range. What's in it for me? Nothing. So generally people don't run around finding a used car for someone else and they generally don't shovel their neighbour's driveway. Similarly, there is no advantage in paying attention to politics and voting. Let someone else do the heavy lifting and sit back to enjoy the benefits - such as they are.

You're assuming everyone believes that they have no stake in who gets elected, or are willing to simply trust their neighbours to make the right decisions. I don't think that's the case. I think that people don't value what they get too easily, and that people think all politicians are lying and self serving, and so see no point in trying to choose among them. Making the electorate smaller but more knowledgeable could result in better leaders and thus inspire others to want to vote.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Perhaps, but not many others have been given much of a trial. And with an attitude like yours no other type of government ever WILL be tried.

[Canadian Blue]

Argus that system is a failure and would only result in strife. Every person has a right to vote, and people shouldn't have to do a test in order to vote.

[Argus]

Argus that system is a failure and would only result in strife. Every person has a right to vote, and people shouldn't have to do a test in order to vote.

How do you know it's a failure when it's never been implimented. Why should every person have the right to vote? Isn't it better for society if we have only intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful voters?

[Charles Anthony]

The intelligent and knowledgeable and thoughtful voters may not have the interests of "society" at heart.

Would you want me to be a member of this voting elite?

[cybercoma]

Argus that system is a failure and would only result in strife. Every person has a right to vote, and people shouldn't have to do a test in order to vote.

How do you know it's a failure when it's never been implimented. Why should every person have the right to vote? Isn't it better for society if we have only intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful voters?

Who creates and administers this test? What is the benchmark for "intelligence," "knowledge," and "thoughtfulness" to pass this test?

Do people simply need to know what a party stands for? What a particular candidate stands on? I hope not, because Dalton McGuinty did a damn good job of showing why that's meaningless.

How do you handle the "no vote" voters if they decide to revolt because decisions are being made for them?

We can't even discriminate in hiring when it comes to people being illiterate, how do you handle them taking this test?

I'm not saying you're wrong...I just need a more complete picture of this process.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I agree that there should be a test. Here are the questions for such a test.

1) Are you a Canadian citizen?

2) Are you currently incarcerated?

3) Are you a tax payer?

Sat yes to these questions and you are entitled to vote, period. But I still think that it ought to be against the law not to vote.

[Leafless]

Argus that system is a failure and would only result in strife. Every person has a right to vote, and people shouldn't have to do a test in order to vote.

How do you know it's a failure when it's never been implimented. Why should every person have the right to vote? Isn't it better for society if we have only intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful voters?

I agree with Argus, as the more one is politically informed, the less of a chance of one being duped in by manipulative politicians.

But some of the time political parties and politicians do what they want anyways, as evident with years of Liberal rule.

This of course creates a dysfunctional political system like what we have presently in Canada and it seems to me some Canadian voters ARE extremely naive and uninformed as to not politically punish the perpetrators in a more permanent fashion, who are primarily the cause of Canada's dysfunctional political system.

Relating to polls this is not the case as the leaderless Liberals are riding almost has high as the Conservatives.

This has led me to believe that perhaps Canadians have been so politically conditioned (due to being politically ignorant) to believe massive political corruption combined with soothing socialistic offerings is what Canadians want, backed up by hundreds of deceiving polls and policies such as the flawed and divisive official multiculturalism in favour of Liberal ideologies.